Peanut Gallery - An Atheistic world view, reasonable and logical, or not?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The formal debate may be found here: An Atheistic world view, reasonable and logical, or not?

 

[Davian]

 

[Strathos]

So is there any official consensus to who wins these debates or what?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So is there any official consensus to who wins these debates or what?

No, there is no official consensus; but it's a lot of fun to discuss here.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Opening post: #2
Second post is up: #3

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

MOD HAT...

This thread has been moved to this Forum to stimulate discussion; a permanent redirect has been left in the Peanut Gallery Forum.

Happy posting!

Mark
Staff Supervisor

 

[Dave Ellis]

And Theycallmedavid is already pulling out the strawman attacks on what an Atheistic Worldview is....

 

[quatona]

And Theycallmedavid is already pulling out the strawman attacks on what an Atheistic Worldview is....

Well, the deck had been stacked that way already from the way the subject was defined. Per phrasing of the debate topic, Freodin´s position or worldview was never relevant - TCMD had made sure he was the one to define the position that Freodin would have to defend.
Personally, I would have decide to not touch this debate with a ten foot pole already when reading such nonsense as "(traditional) atheist worldview". The disingenious tactics to come were just too obvious from the start.
Sad to say, Freodin had lost this debate before it had even started - not because TCMD has a point, but simply because he managed to stack the deck.

 

[Syd the Human]

Well, the deck had been stacked that way already from the way the subject was defined. Per phrasing of the debate topic, Freodin´s position or worldview was never relevant - TCMD had made sure he was the one to define the position that Freodin would have to defend.
Personally, I would have decide to not touch this debate with a ten foot pole already when reading such nonsense as "(traditional) atheist worldview". The disingenious tactics to come were just too obvious from the start.
Sad to say, Freodin had lost this debate before it had even started - not because TCMD has a point, but simply because he managed to stack the deck.

I think that is the only way he could attempt to succeed.

 

[Davian]

Well, the deck had been stacked that way already from the way the subject was defined. Per phrasing of the debate topic, Freodin´s position or worldview was never relevant - TCMD had made sure he was the one to define the position that Freodin would have to defend.
Personally, I would have decide to not touch this debate with a ten foot pole already when reading such nonsense as "(traditional) atheist worldview". The disingenious tactics to come were just too obvious from the start.
Sad to say, Freodin had lost this debate before it had even started - not because TCMD has a point, but simply because he managed to stack the deck.

Agreed.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I think that is the only way he could attempt to succeed.

Perhaps we should start a debate entitled "is TheyCallMeDavid still beating his wife"...

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sad to say, Freodin had lost this debate before it had even started - not because TCMD has a point, but simply because he managed to stack the deck.

Well, it's actually quite easy to win that debate. All you have to do is reject TCMD's assertions that what he defines to be a "traditional" atheist worldview is actually so, which would expose it as a strawman.

You can do that by pointing out that you are a traditional atheist, and don't believe in any of the things that TCMD is attacking.

Doing that you short circuit any attack that he has. He'll be forced to debate on your beliefs if he wants to win.

However, having interacted with him in the past, he's likely to keep launching the same strawman attacks, which you have already refuted. I'd call that a win for Freodin if it turns out that way.

 

[Gadarene]

And Theycallmedavid is already pulling out the strawman attacks on what an Atheistic Worldview is....

It's TheyCallMeDave, what do you expect?

He constantly lies about atheists as a matter of course here.

This is a 'chess-with-a-pigeon' scenario which is why I keep refusing his requests for debates. I'm not going to debate someone formally who has shown they have no scruples when discussing informally.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, the deck had been stacked that way already from the way the subject was defined. Per phrasing of the debate topic, Freodin´s position or worldview was never relevant - TCMD had made sure he was the one to define the position that Freodin would have to defend.
Personally, I would have decide to not touch this debate with a ten foot pole already when reading such nonsense as "(traditional) atheist worldview". The disingenious tactics to come were just too obvious from the start.
Sad to say, Freodin had lost this debate before it had even started - not because TCMD has a point, but simply because he managed to stack the deck.

Right out of the William Lane Craig textbook on debating.

 

[Strathos]

It probably would have made more sense to argue against a humanist worldview

 

[Gadarene]

It probably would have made more sense to argue against a humanist worldview

At least that's a positive-claiming worldview.

 

[KWCrazy]

Whether anyone's world view is reasonable or logical usually depends on whether you share that world view. From the stand point of Christianity; knowing that God not only exists but that his presence is evidenced everywhere in the world around us, I could say the atheism is such a denial of the obvious that it could constitute a failure of clear mental functioning. From the standpoint of a naturalists who believes only what can be seen or proven in the physical world, atheism not only makes sense but is the logical conclusion. The bigger question is whether atheism is right, or if it requires a constant denial of anything that contra-indicates its conclusions. In my personal experience, having seen and experienced things that naturalists and atheists refuse to believe exists, I see it as an intentional blinder that shields one from the horrible reality that all actions have a consequence and that one day we will face the consequence of our actions.

Perhaps, depending on your world view, atheism could be considered logical and founded in physical reality. That does not and cannot, however, make it correct.

 

[Davian]

Whether anyone's world view is reasonable or logical usually depends on whether you share that world view. From the stand point of Christianity; knowing that God not only exists but that his presence is evidenced everywhere in the world around us, I could say the atheism is such a denial of the obvious that it could constitute a failure of clear mental functioning.

You could say that, which might bring your own mental functioning into question following your admission that you are unable to demonstrate that this "presence" is anything other than a product of your imagination.

From the standpoint of a naturalists who believes only what can be seen or proven in the physical world, atheism not only makes sense but is the logical conclusion. The bigger question is whether atheism is right, or if it requires a constant denial of anything that contra-indicates its conclusions.

Atheism is not a position of truth, it is a lack of belief in gods. If you have something of significance that would contradict a conclusion that gods are only characters in books, you have yet to present it.

In my personal experience, having seen and experienced things that naturalists and atheists refuse to believe exists, I see it as an intentional blinder that shields one from the horrible reality that all actions have a consequence and that one day we will face the consequence of our actions.

Perhaps it is your own blinders that you think are reality.

Perhaps, depending on your world view, atheism could be considered logical and founded in physical reality. That does not and cannot, however, make it correct.

True, but in the absence of objective evidence for any deities that people have come up with to date, it would seem to be the logical position to take.

 

[yonah_mishael]

The topic really should be stated as an opinion, not as a question. You cannot take a positive position on a question. If I say "computers are evil," then I can take up the position and defend it - or I can take up the negative and counter it. It is not appropriate to phrase it as a question: "Are computers evil?" The statement of the topic would make better sense if it followed proper form.

The topic should either be stated as a positive: The atheistic worldview is reasonable and logical. Or, it should be stated negatively: The atheistic worldview is neither reasonable nor logical (... unreasonable and illogical). From that point, the arguers can take up their positions, either in agreement or in disagreement with the statement.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The topic really should be stated as an opinion, not as a question. You cannot take a positive position on a question. If I say "computers are evil," then I can take up the position and defend it - or I can take up the negative and counter it. It is not appropriate to phrase it as a question: "Are computers evil?" The statement of the topic would make better sense if it followed proper form.

The topic should either be stated as a positive: The atheistic worldview is reasonable and logical. Or, it should be stated negatively: The atheistic worldview is neither reasonable nor logical (... unreasonable and illogical). From that point, the arguers can take up their positions, either in agreement or in disagreement with the statement.

Except that there's no such thing as 'the atheistic worldview'.